Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case (pt1)

[David Von Pein]

F. NICHOLAS CIACELLI, THE OWNER OF THE REPLICA PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE USED IN THE STEPHEN KING SERIES, POSTED THE VIDEO BELOW AND SAID:

Kinda almost laughable if one knows the actual footage..... oh my....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-rcjDGNFEH_RC00U2pNV0FNc0E/view

==============================


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Indeed it is laughable. I just love all the cops who suddenly appeared immediately in the street---even though there were really zero cops in those positions. And the actor portraying Secret Service agent Clint Hill jumps on the car way too soon in the re-enactments. And no Jackie on the trunk at all??


==============================


F. NICHOLAS CIACELLI SAID:

I talked to one of the writers. It wasn't supposed to be accurate. It was supposed to be only similar, because this is taking place in a different timeframe, according to them.


==============================


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, okay, Nicholas. Yes, the fact that King's film is fiction for the most part would explain it. And I'm guessing that those last two gunshots must have been fired by the police?? ~shrug~


==============================


RANDY OWEN SAID:

Did they only do one take? I would have thought they would have done a few passes to get various angles, etc.


==============================


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I watched every bit of the filming via the Dealey Plaza EarthCam on 10/8/15. They did 17 total run-throughs of the motorcade. In the first six, there were no shots fired in Dealey Plaza at all. In takes 7 through 17, there were shots fired, with the crowd reacting, screaming, etc.


==============================


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Here are two photos taken during the motorcade re-enactments filmed in Dealey Plaza for the Stephen King mini-series on October 8th, 2015. Click for bigger views:








==============================

IN NOVEMBER 2015, DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Less than a month after the filming that was done in Dallas for the Stephen King mini-series, another film crew invaded Dealey Plaza on November 2, 2015, to shoot scenes for director Rob Reiner's upcoming feature motion picture "LBJ", starring Woody Harrelson as Lyndon B. Johnson.

More information can be found HERE.

Excerpt from the above article:

“One thing’s clear: There’s a mighty big difference between a made-for-Hulu mini-series starring James Franco and a Major Motion Picture directed by Rob Reiner with an all-star cast. For one thing, Dealey Plaza’s been decorated with the old highway signs "11/22/63" opted to ignore.”

Here are three pictures taken during the filming of "LBJ" in Dallas (click to enlarge):

Edited April 23, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

DVP,

Where is the word "allegedly" in your statement above? He was never tried, let alone convicted. Once again your personal opinion becomes a fact.

I agree with William Manchester. Given the evidence that exists against Oswald, there's no "allegedly" about it.

Quoting Manchester:

"Lee Oswald has been repeatedly identified here [in the 1967 book "The Death Of A President"] as the President's slayer. He is never "alleged" or "suspected" or "supposed" or "surmised"; he is the culprit. Some, intimidated by the fiction that only judges may don the black cap and condemn, may disapprove.

[...]

But enough is enough. The evidence pointing to his guilt is far more incriminating than that against [Abraham Lincoln's assassin John Wilkes] Booth. .... He is the right man; there is nothing provisional about it.

[...]

From the instant he dropped his mail-order rifle on the top floor [actually the next-to-top floor] and fled down the enclosed stair well--leaving a tuft of fibers from his shirt wedged in the butt plate and a profusion of finger and palm prints on the weapon, on the paper bag which he had used to conceal the gun during the drive from Irving with Wesley Frazier, and on one of the cartons he had stacked as a gun rest--there could be no doubt of his ultimate conviction.

[...]

Because of Oswald's epic stupidity--and his panic; it is highly likely that he lost his head when Officer Tippit beckoned to him--the assassin's movements after the murder can be reconstructed with precision."

-- William Manchester; Pages 278-279 of "The Death Of A President"

the-death-of-a-president.blogspot.com

Edited April 23, 2016 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

To get this back on track, the Dark Syde must be getting worried about my article at Parry's site.

Photon/Paul May is over there now..

This guy makes DVP look rational.

[Tom Neal]

DVP,

Where is the word "allegedly" in your statement above? He was never tried, let alone convicted. Once again your personal opinion becomes a fact.

I agree with William Manchester. Given the evidence that exists against Oswald, there's no "allegedly" about it.

I'd like to see the Manchester defense at work if you were sued by Marina, June and Rachel. If you knew anything at all about the law you'd know you would lose. He wasn't convicted , so legally he is allegedly guilty.

Even you must know that, but of course facts and legal issues are not in your MO, anyway. Nor is an admission you are wrong.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Tom Neal

[David Von Pein]

Geez, why so antagonistic, Tom? The evidence clearly indicates Oswald's guilt, so why should I sugar-coat it?

Edited April 24, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

Geez, why so antagonistic, Tom? The evidence clearly indicates Oswald's guilt, so why should I sugar-coat it?

knowing you as someone who has failed miserably with internet book publishing PR (Reclaiming History by Vin da-Bugliosi), why do you insist you're correct here regarding Oswald's guilt? What are your cred's? Perhaps a little birdie told you so? My gosh guy, you sell fried chicken and day dream about playing American Legion baseball... coauthor 1 book, 11 websites, 6 blogs, 7 YouTube channels, 467,533 USENET/Internet forums-board postings. Yet never a public appearance. Anywhere! I mean, what's wrong with this picture, Dave-the-nowhere-man?

Edited April 24, 2016 by David G. Healy

[James DiEugenio]

If the WR had proven Oswald's guilt, CBS would not have to have done what it did.

Which was assemble a rigged show with the likes of Alvarez and his dumb "jiggle effect" and a shot at 186 through branches of an oak tree.

The Warren Report did not do that. And this is why CBS tried to do it in a different way, and failed.

BTW, I have just gotten some belated information about the 1975 show.

The reason Rather was the host in that one is because Cronkite refused to do it!

[Tom Neal]

Geez, why so antagonistic, Tom? The evidence clearly indicates Oswald's guilt, so why should I sugar-coat it?

My point, which you have missed entirely, is that you refuse to admit a simple fact that is unquestionable: LHO will forever be the *alleged* assassin. That is reality. However, In your universe you have tried and convicted him and he's guilty beyond any doubt...simply because you say so: "The evidence clearly indicates Oswald's guilt..."

This displays your complete denial of the reality that the evidence does NOT *clearly* indicate LHO's guilt. What the evidence does CLEARLY indicate is that it has been tampered with to create the illusion of Oswald's guilt.

Anyone who could accept reality as it is, would simply have replied; "Yes, legally he is the *alleged* assassin. This implies neither guilt nor innocence - it only indicates that he was never tried." However, in DVP world a *perfect* case against LHO exists. To accept ANY fact, even legally speaking, that LHO will never be declared guilty destroys your frail fantasy universe.

Your entire MO consists of ignoring ANY and ALL facts that conflict with your universe. This is simply *one* more fact that you refuse to admit.

Pot calls kettle black: Your antagonism - one more FACT ignored to preserve DVP World. Brilliant defense - positively brilliant...

Tom

Edited April 24, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

BTW, I have just gotten some belated information about the 1975 show.

The reason Rather was the host in that one is because Cronkite refused to do it!

Damn! GREAT find, Jim!

Did the "Most Trusted Man in America" (ironic title, considering CBS simply made it up with no supporting evidence) refuse because he didn't believe CBS was presenting the truth? Considering what he said and did prior to this, I have to wonder what was the item that EVEN Cronkite refused to present?

Tom

[David Von Pein]

LHO will forever be the *alleged* assassin. That is reality. However, In your universe you have tried and convicted him and he's guilty beyond any doubt...simply because you say so: "The evidence clearly indicates Oswald's guilt..."

The evidence DOES clearly indicate his guilt. And there's NOTHING on this Earth that you or I can do to change that basic of all facts.

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

This displays your complete denial of the reality that the evidence does NOT *clearly* indicate LHO's guilt. What the evidence does CLEARLY indicate is that it has been tampered with to create the illusion of Oswald's guilt.

So, it must have been, in effect, The World Against The Patsy, is that correct? Because there's a LOT of evidence pointing to a certain Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald, which is evidence that was discovered in MULTIPLE places (hospital, limousine, TSBD, 10th Street, the Paine garage, Oswald's roominghouse). Was all of that stuff gathered up AFTER it was "planted", or was it gathered and then switched?

The idea that all of the evidence against Oswald is phony is beyond silly, and is an outrageous theory that should be embarrassing to anyone who suggests such a thing. And yet many Internet CTers are charter members of the "Everything's Fake" club. But don't expect me to join. It's way too embarrassing. And, besides, my bladder is far too weak to be a member of that fraternity.

Anyone who could accept reality as it is, would simply have replied; "Yes, legally he is the *alleged* assassin. This implies neither guilt nor innocence - it only indicates that he was never tried." However, in DVP['s] world[,] a *perfect* case against LHO exists. To accept ANY fact, even legally speaking, that LHO will never be declared guilty destroys your frail fantasy universe.

When did I ever state that the case against Oswald is "perfect"? Answer -- Never.

The case against Oswald is extremely strong, yes. But the world is never "perfect". Just ask your bumbling patsy framers for proof of that. They certainly weren't "perfect" either (according to CTers anyway). They decided to frame their patsy in the TSBD, but then went ahead and shot at the President from the opposite direction--from the Grassy Knoll. Brilliant!

Thank goodness your patsy-framing conspirators had the whole world of law enforcement jumping on board the "Let's Frame Oswald" train on Day 1 to help them out of this mess, huh? Because, per the conspiracists, the DPD jumped right on board and started switching/planting evidence, and so did the Secret Service and the FBI. And then the Warren Commission jumped on board to frame the patsy too!

Whoever planned that assassination must have had Lady Luck on his/their side on November 22, 1963 -- in spades! Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Neal?

(My apologies to Jimmy DiEugenio. We've drifted off topic--again. So sorry. Jim's going to start disliking me if I don't stop doing that.)

Edited April 24, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

Geez, why so antagonistic, Tom? The evidence clearly indicates Oswald's guilt, so why should I sugar-coat it?

knowing you as someone who has failed miserably with internet book publishing PR (Reclaiming History by Vin da-Bugliosi), why do you insist you're correct here regarding Oswald's guilt? What are your cred's? Perhaps a little birdie told you so? My gosh guy, you sell fried chicken and day dream about playing American Legion baseball... coauthor 1 book, 11 websites, 6 blogs, 7 YouTube channels, 467,533 USENET/Internet forums-board postings. Yet never a public appearance. Anywhere! I mean, what's wrong with this picture,

Dave-the-nowhere-man?

Dave's a real nowhere man

Living in his nowhere land

Believing all his nowhere "facts" like nobody

He's as blind as he can be

Just see's what he wants to see

Isn't he like Vincent Bu' and Posner.

Nowhere man, please listen

You don't don't what you're missing

Nowhere man, The truuuth you reject out of hand

Dave, he has one point of view

Listens not to me or you

Believing only nowhere "facts" like nobody

Edited April 25, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

The evidence DOES clearly indicate [Oswald's] guilt. And there's NOTHING on this Earth that you or I can do to change that basic of all facts.

Oh really? Then how do you explain the evidence that shows that Oswald did NOT fire the Carcano rifle that day?

[David Von Pein]

How do you explain the evidence that shows that Oswald did NOT fire the Carcano rifle that day?

You surely aren't relying on the wholly UNreliable paraffin (cheek) test, are you?

Edited April 24, 2016 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy and Tom:

I have been around the block with DVP.

See, he has been doing this stunt all over the web for a very long time.

So what he does is simply goes from one argument to another, sort of like walking over stepping stones in a stream. Once you knock down one, he goes to something else.

Always avoiding the obvious: which is that if everything is questionable, then there is no case.

He then tries to say, "Oh, and so everything is faked?"

More baloney. See, if you read Sylvia Meagher's classic book, Accessories after the Fact, I don't recall her saying anything was fabricated. Her argument was simple: the state of the evidence in 1964 did not come close to convicting Oswald for a felony. Which, back then, was this standard: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt and to a moral certainty.

This is why in the book DVP wrote with Ayton, they changed the standard without telling the reader. They changed it to something much closer to the standard in a civl trial: the preponderance on the evidence. You can check on this in any legal law book on line or in a law library.

But as Martin Hay so well delineated in his review, they could not even clear that standard.

In that way, they were like CBS, they changed the rules and then still couldn't win. Does it get worse than that?

Edited April 24, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

From Martin Hay's wonderful review:

As is obvious from the title of their book, Ayton and Von Pein want you to believe that there is no "reasonable doubt" about Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the assassination. The authors even treat us to their (very unusual) definition of the term, writing that "If the preponderance of evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is not reasonable to say a particular anomalous piece of evidence shows innocence. Even when more than one anomaly arises, as it certainly does with respect to the JFK assassination, it is still not 'reasonable' to assume innocence if the preponderance of evidence shows guilt." (p. 118)

Why is this so unusual? Because the above is not the legal definition of the term as used in American criminal courts. The legal definition of beyond reasonable doubt in that venue is that 12 reasonable jurors have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt; they are convinced to a moral certainty that the accused committed the crime. If they do have doubt, they are not reasonable doubts. Which means that, during the deliberations, the one or two people who were reserving judgment had their doubts washed away by the other 10 or 11 jurors' arguments. Another way of explaining it is this: the prosecutor has judiciously, methodically and conclusively closed off all other avenues of possible explication to the defense. The crime could have happened no other way. It is the most stringent standard in American jurisprudence. That is because a man's life or liberty is at stake. The second most stringent standard is, "by clear and convincing evidence." That standard is used in many administrative hearings, such as those by the ABA to disbar an attorney. The standard the authors quote above is actually the lowest standard and is used in most civil courts. It is very hard to believe the writers do not understand the difference. Ayton is from the UK, but Von Pein is an American. Yet, at least the book editor should have pointed out this serious discrepancy which, in and of itself, mitigates the portentousness of the title. This reversal reduces the book to a utilitarian, not a fact finding or judicial inquiry. In other words, because of the Ayton/Von Pein switcheroo, the many serious evidentiary issues repeatedly highlighted by critics over the last fifty years do not amount to reasonable doubt. Needless to say, actual legal experts; lawyers who understand the different standards and why they are used; would feel differently.

Martin's fine review which stopped the book in its tracks: http://www.ctka.net/2015/Ayton%20Review.html

Edited April 24, 2016 by James DiEugenio